Your 'daring' to do this leads them to portray themselves as being ‘your victims’ – an ‘assessment’ that is automatically endorsed by their peers and higher up, who join their rank by (typically) piling up, with the aim of 'justifying' them and covering them up, more and more illegal actions and decisions on top of the initial ones.

Your ‘daring’ to also stand-up to them results in an exponentially growing army of ‘victims’ - (typically) hell-bent on ‘getting your scalp’ - at any cost.

1. Six months after the 21.12.01 assertion that "Sufficient funds are held to cover the cost of the works within the Reserve Fund", I received a 17.07.02 demand of £14,400 (US$25,400) for "the works" - based on an UNSUPPORTED 15.07.02 global demand of £736,200 (US$1.3m) - which was followed by the threat of taking my leasehold apartment from me, and contacting my mortgage lender, if I failed to pay immediately.

This is ALL I wanted to do: pay my just and fair share of the costs i.e. as per the terms of my Lease - which is a legally binding contract - on both parties - landlord and leaseholder, and as per my statutory rights (e.g. my 09.08.03 letter to District Judge Wright). I therefore persisted in wanting to get the answer to what I consider to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask: What are you going to spend my money on? - acting as the majority of people would, when asked to pay £14,400 out of the blue.

Ignoring my repeated demands for supporting evidence (11.08.02, 16.09.02), in 'her' malicious20.09.02 letter (preceded by 'her' 30.08.02 letter, yet again denying the intention to build a penthouse, and her 20.08.02 letter to the leaseholders, falsely claiming that there were "no objectors") - Hathaway, MRICS, threatened me with legal proceedings if I failed to pay immediately the £14,400 demanded.

Contrast Silverstone's treatment, 2 weeks later, in his 21.10.02 letter to the solicitors of one of my fellow leaseholders: "We note you have made no proposal on behalf of your client to pay all or part of the interim service charge. We would be grateful if you would clarify whether your client does in fact have any objection to the cost of the major works."

(The tribunal was therefore placing me on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) (there must be an equivalent for the tribunal) by very seriously limiting my ability to challenge the Application). (NB: See, below / page for a repeat of this with the courts in: 2002-04 ; 2007-08 ; 2011).

My being treated like a piece of dirt, a non-entity who does not have the right to have rights - forced me to employ a team of advisors (in a hurry), at very great costs. (LVT # 2.3 ; My Diary 2003: 17 Jan , 23 Jan).

I was vindicated as the original sum demanded of £736,207 (US$1.3m) was reduced by £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund, 'said' to include £144k) i.e. nearly 70% less (LVT # 4.1).

This is based on the assessment of my (RICS) surveyor as, while the 17.06.03 LVT report (ref LVT/SC/007/120/02) is a fair representation of what took place, because it was 'most inconvenient' for 'Dear Mr Ladsky' (not to mention the WLCC judges (below)...

The 2nd refusal, dated 26.11.03, stated (LVT # 7): “It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to produce a summary of their decision as this may well be regarded as providing additional reasons”. In the light of the tribunal's statutory remit (LVT # 4), this answer is UNBELIEVABLE. Yes! £500,000 worth of “additional reasons” for my fellow leaseholders to refuse to pay the fraudulent ‘service charge’ demand / ask for a refund / go back to HM's judiciaries in WLCC and demand they undo the injustice, as well as take action against the Ladsky gang of racketeers.

(Of note, during the 5 Feb 03 tribunal 'hearing', Ladsky asked the Chair "Will Ms Rawé pay the £250,000 (US$441,000) of additional costs that will be incurred as a result of the delay in the start of the works due to the hearing?" .

The reply that I was perfectly within my rights to challenge his Application is captured under para.64 of the 17.06.03 report ('Summary' # 1.1): "Although she is in the minority, the Respondent's legal right to challenge the Applicant's proposal, as she has done, cannot be fettered") (NB: I was "in the minority", thanks to the collusion and conniving detailed above). (As detailed under para.50 of the 17.06.03 report: "another unhappy lessee was represented on the last day of the hearing").

At the thenLondon LVT pre-trial hearing (above) - at which, as can be seen from the 29.10.02 tribunal's directions, Ladsky, Hathaway et.al. were also present - we, leaseholders, were specifically told by the Chair toNOT pay the 'service charge' UNTIL the tribunal had issued its report - and it had been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (LVT # 1.5).

It proceeded with the claim - IN SPITE of having absolute knowledge that it was (among others) an abuse of process of court (WLCC # 2 ; CKFT # 6.1). (Further proof in support of my position: (1) 09.04.03 letter from Lisa McLean, Piper Smith Basham(Watton), to my then solicitors; (2) 12.12.02 letter to CKFT, from the solicitors of one my fellow leaseholders).

Its 'understanding' of its case management duty (CPR Rule 1.4) was to, in its 24.01.03 reply, throw the ball back in my court, by stating that I needed to "...inform the court whether the claimant agrees to the claim being stayed pending the LVT hearing". Consider my likelihood of 'success', in the light of events to date: Zero! (From Dec 02, I raised the issue in my communications to the court a total of 7 times over a 7-month period).

Being therefore aware of my (and fellow leaseholders) being placed on "an unequal footing" (CPR Overriding Objective) by NOT having the information to which we were legally entitled to defend ourselves against the claim, it nonetheless forged ahead with it - bullying, by means of Charging Orders and Judgments (WLCC # 5 ; CKFT # 6.3 ; # 6.5), at least 7 of my fellow leaseholders into paying the FULL AMOUNT demanded BEFORE HM's tribunal issued its report - thereby breaching their rights under the lease (WLCC # 6))

As material evidence against the demand only came to light during the three-day thenLondon LVT hearings, and many of my fellow leaseholders had been prevented - deliberately - from attending (above), I did my best to communicate the TRUE outcome of the LVT findings (above) to as many of them as I could.

However, by then (June 03) many had ended paying the FULL amount demanded.

“It is not the duty of the tribunal to assess the particular contribution payable by any specific tenant but only to determine the reasonableness, or otherwise, of the service charges as a whole to go on the service account from which no doubt you can assess the proportion for that particular tenant.”

"...the costs of any additional floor on the property will NOT be borne by the residents"; "All tenants are of course protected by the Landlord and Tenant Acts to ensure those carrying out any works do so reasonably.";

"...as I own flats 34+35 I pay 17% of the building charges and I should assure you it is in my interest to keep any costs as reasonable as possible".

From being made to pay over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country (by then, 33 years previously), as a law-abiding, British National, I had the understandable expectation that (among others) the courts would be there for me if I ever needed to call on them to act as per their legal mandate. (Obviously, as a law-abiding individual, until then, I had NEVER had any dealings with Her Majesty's courts and police). (See also, below, # 15 - Surveillance).

I stated in my 19.12.03 Notice of acceptance to CKFT that I was doing this "for the sake of bringing this dispute to an end". I wanted to put an end to this horrendous nightmare. I was so repulsed by what had happened to me (including with the police - see below), that my plan was to leave the country - NEVER to return - as it is no longer the country I fell in love with, and decided to make my home, as well as committed to by taking on the British Nationality.

However, I should have known better that
what I was hoping to achieve
was like trying to take a bone
away from a dog - and an extremely
vicious one at that (see below).

making me miss - deliberately - a so-called 'hearing', at which a 28.05.04 Order was issued, stating that the action against me was "stayed" - IN SPITE of HM's District Judge Madge having absolute knowledge that agreement had been reached (WLCC # 13 ; Lord Falconer of Thoroton # 3 , # 4);

4. OUTCOME: 20 months of absolute sheer utter hell; £40,000 (US$70,000) in professional fees, and numerous other costs, including lost income; over 450 hours of my life - for a FRAUDULENT demand of £14,400 (US$25,400)...

Relative to the original sum demanded of £736,206 (US$1.3m) (above), it made a difference of only £66,269 (US$113,730) - or 9% less (when, in fact, relative to the LVT findings, it should have been less 68%). (Deceptively, in his letter, Martin omitted to add the VAT and management fee) (MRJ # 17)).

(2 days later, in 'his' (=Ladsky's) 04.08.04 letter, Barrie Martin had (of course) the nerve to accuse me of being "responsible for the tribunal proceedings"; my 11.08.04 reply). (See above, the note about the RICS dismissing my complaint against MRJ).

6. In 2004, Andrew Ladsky's 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand-up to him and interfere with his fraud, translated, among many others, in his repeating the above £14,400 (US$25,400) demand in a 24.05.04 invoice, followed by a 21.10.04 invoice, to which a further £1,000 was added, and a 16.11.04 invoice.

(With hindsight, he had made that clear early on e.g. on 3 Jan 03, (because I was challenging his application to the tribunal, above) - he told me, with a lot of venom in his voice: "I am going to get you this year!". Unfortunately, at the time, I was believing naïvely in the State's propaganda about having 'rights' and avenues open to me for justice and redress). (3 weeks later, Ladsky filed a so-called "complaint" against me with his flunkeys at Chelsea police - see below).

14 months later, MRJ sent me a 09.01.06 invoice, stating: "Brought forward balance": £5,625 (US$9,900). What led to the £10,254 (US$18,080) reduction, relative to the previous invoice of 16.11.04 (in relation to which I, obviously, had NOT paid anything)? I have no idea, as NO explanation was provided.

...thereby amounting to a standard policy of not dealing with the rats, opting instead to nail down the floorboards (while claiming e.g. to be "utterly fed up of the attacks on the [parties]") - allowing the rats to carry on freely with their destruction, as well as multiply in peace - as exemplified by my current situation (below).

Then, as briefly detailed in this Overview (and demonstrated by other examples), with the obvious endorsement and assistance of the highest level within the 'official', and especially 'non-official' executive, i.e. 'the Brotherhood', they ALL join forces - and embark on a widespread, ongoing 'retribution' regime against those who, like me, 'dare' to stand-up to them, and not give up - in the process, making maximum use of their KEY TOOL: MENTAL TORTURE.

Of note: in relation to the ongoing persecution by the State, I submit that, likewise, I have no protection whatsoever against its blatant abuse of power by the State - see, below.

As can be seen from my documents (e.g. Document library), NONE of the parties can plead ignorance of the relevant facts, issues and evidence. Indeed, I went to great lengths to explain events and, to prove that I was 'not making it up', provided large bundles of supporting documents - including PRIOR to launching my website - see e.g. examples under Note 8, below. I became convinced from their outrageous conduct that seeing me battle was, to them, equivalent to watching sadistic porn movies.

The reality is that they ALL form a gigantic web of symbiotic relationships and networks - forged through blatantly obvious implicit / explicit 'memorandums of understanding' e.g. police and Law Society (copy),...

In his 03.10.06 letter, Hershkorn claimed, of course, without providing ANY evidence in support (my reply of 05.10.06) (*) that

"[my website] contains suggestions that our client [Ladsky] is guilty of criminal activities and fraud all of which are totally unsubstantiated, outrageous and false... Our client's reputation has been severely damaged." (I can't stop laughing at that considering the evidence contained on this page and under e.g. Extortion ; Advisors).

He threatened the ISP with "proceedings" if it did not close down my site immediately - leading the ISP to cave in (PJ # 2)

It was followed by District Judge Ryan threatening "to strike out my Defence leaving the claimant free to apply for a judgment against [me]" i.e. get me to pay the whole claim - if I did not file my Allocation Questionnaire (WLCC # 26) - which, in his 'directions', he then TOTALLY ignored (WLCC # 27.1).

After an extremely traumatic 16-month battle - as I had predicted in my 03.06.08 Wit.Stat. (WLCC # 30) - 'the claimants' FAILED to supply me with their witness statement. This was a repeat of what took place with the (above) 29.11.02 claim. However, because, this time, I was a Litigant in Person throughout the process i.e. NOT represented - thereby removing the possibility of a 'behind the scene deal' - instead of the previous outcome (which was the 21 Oct 03 'offer' (above))...

It was glaringly obvious from the lack of reason for ending the claim, as well as from subsequent events, that the Ladsky - WLCCmafia perceived the Notice as marking the end of the matter - not expecting me to follow it by an action for my costs (# 12, below).

In fact, I submit that the comment made at the time, was along the following: "Another step in the retribution accomplished boys! Well done! But, mustn't relax. As you would expect from a Nazi, this is a tough bitch. So, must not relent on the psychological harassment - until we finally get her".

No doubt, they were ALL looking forward to 'the mother of all sadistic kicks' - counting on seeing me ‘walk away’, like ‘a good little girl’, ‘ever-so-grateful’, with my tail between my legs - while they were ALL getting away scot-free from ALL they had made suffer and lose, since 2002. And, no doubt, I was also expected to let go of my apartment at a huge loss (e.g. Comment # 19).

As per my rights (under Civil Procedure Rules), I started the procedure to claim my costs back (PJ # 32).

It led Portner and its client to give, in their 11.08.08 'Points of Dispute' (in which, of course, they challenged everything in my claim) - the most outrageous, preposterous excuse for dropping the claim:

"...it was found that the demand for ground rent and service charges served by the managing agent had given the incorrect identity and address for the landlord..." (PJ # 33).

In fact, in addition to implying, in the context of the costs I claimed for writing my 12.09.07 Defence, that I was a liar (Events # 11(2)) (NB: Probably because Hoffman's 'brothers' in the police were still fuming from the fact I had fooled them on 31 Aug 07 - and he wanted to score on their behalf)...

At the end of the so-called 'hearing', the matter of the 14.01.09 £4,500 “offer” from “Rootstock” was raised. When I showed Hoffman my reply of 19.01.09, he expressed scorn as soon as he read my header “Your derisory “offer” of 14 January 2009” - and hence disapproval at my rejecting it.

Reason? My undertaking the procedure to claim for my costs was not expected - and - it was 'highly inconvenient’ for all. (Hoffman did not bother to read the rest of my letter. Obviously, because he (in breach of CPR), had seen it before the 'hearing').

When asked by Hoffman whether I intended to appeal, I replied that I would not, as it was blatantly obvious that my 'card was marked' with Her Majesty's Court Service - thereby depriving me, the victim of crime - in breach of my rights - of access to justice and redress. (I was again proven right - for the 6th time - in 2011) (below).

This claim only came to light as a result of my filing a 19 Apr 11 Claim against the police (pt # 18(2), below), during which it issued me with a July 11 version of the "crime report" (v. the July 09 version it had supplied me previously) (pt # 18 2(4), below).

“Thanks for your reply, yes there are laws relating to false reporting. The producer of this website is franco-german(sic)in origin and so would be aware of the terms pigs and monkeys used during the Nazi regime to refer to Jewish people." (Note the racist accusation).

If you are unable to close the site down I will let the victim know as there is nothing we as a police force can do except class it as a racist incident…” - while STILL making an unsupported, libellous accusation: “racist incident” (# 3 KP(4)(2))

14. Concurrently, Andrew Ladsky attacked me - successfully - through my then employer, KPMG, leading me to resign in Jan 08. Being psychologically unable to work again in this country, it forced me to take early retirement - leading me to lose a high amount of future income.

While KPMG massively redacted Ladsky's letter of 26.03.07, what is left of it, demonstrates that his tactics to secure KPMG's assistance / justify subsequent events, include: highlighting parties covered on my website with which KPMG had a working relationship; threatening defamation proceedings.

"The allegations she makes that she has been followed 24/7 for several years [see # 15, below, for the reality] over a £5,000 bill [NB: above: £14,400 (# 1) - followed by others (# 6), including 1 month before writing his letter: # 11] undoubtedly display clinical paranoia."

Secondly, I was being punished for behaving in the manner KPMG had imposed on me through compulsory yearly training (e.g. 2004 training record). It was as though I was going through a double bereavement: let down by 'the system' in which I had had (naïvely) blind trust and faith, and now by KPMG I had held on a pedestal for being so good to me until then.

After this experience, I was psychologically unable to look for work; NOT in this country. (It took me more than 2 years before I managed to force myself to set foot again in the City (business district)) (and 5 years before I could go where I last worked). With what was left of my life-savings rapidly going down, I was forced to take early retirement - 7 years earlier than planned.

Taking that into consideration, it amounted to an OUTRAGEOUS yearly 'service charge' of £6,257 (US$11,034) v. the (rip-off) share of £1,749 (US$3,086) in 2004, at the start of "the works" = more than 3.5 times 'my share' (MG # 2) (my Comments are also attached to the invoice). As detailed under Martyn Gerrard - Background, MRJ IGNORED my subsequent 3 letters asking for evidence in support, opting instead to keep on sending me the demand.

Because the mafia 'did not like' my challenging the sums demanded - and with the objective of planning the next attack, from July 12, it adopted a policy of NOT providing ANY supporting 'evidence': 'Service charge' summary ; 'Electricity' summary - showing an ever growing negative consumption (YES!) since Mar 13.

... - WHY ARE THEY EVIDENTLY SO OBSESSED WITH ME AND SO SCARED OF ME - THE 'LITTLE PERSON' WITH NO POWER AND NO INFLUENCE?

Concurrently, the State has, and continues to, likewise - UNLAWFULLY - interfere with ALL my means of communication: phones, including interception and retention of important messages (phone companies have staff on the Home Office's payroll); post, including stealing some of my financial statements and, at at times, over extended periods, stealing ALL my post ; prolonged retention of important post;

(*) As I explain under QB # 6(1), (and in my Comments to the 09.08.11 Home Office Order) (assessment subsequently supported by media articles): I submit that I HAVE NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER against the blatant abuse of power by the State.

Ignoring my 11.02.03 letter asking for "precise detail - in writing - of the accusation against me", on the day it received it, the police closed the report FALSELY claiming that it had been "unable to contact [me]" (# 2 KP 12 & 13).

My conclusion that the former was one of Ladsky's 'dogs', and the latter a police informant, was confirmed by the fact that, in addition to refusing to investigate my complaints, the police's focus was on the former. It continued to be case, after I filed a 19.04.11 Claim against the Met Commissioner (police # 6).

At my wits end, my 3rd communication to them was a 02.02.10 letter, headed "When am I due to be killed?" (police # 5.3). (NB: I was referring to the 15 Jun 09 death threat: "Enjoy your life. You don't have long to live" - I had mentioned on pgs 7 & 8 of my 28.11.09 letter to the Met Commissioner (police # 5.2) - about which, of course, the police took no action). (Another one has since been added: 14 Jun 14).

The above left me with only one option: filing a Claim - which I did (as I had warned I would do, on 3 separate occasions, starting in Sep 09) - in HM's London Queen's Bench Division (as a Litigant in Person) - after a further 8 months of very intensive desk research: 19.04.11 Claim against:

(My needing to resort to filing a Claim, leads me to most strongly add my voice to that of the lawyer, in her message to Sir Paul Stephenson: Media: 11 Oct 10).

Of course, at the Pre-action stage (QB # 2), NONE of them attempted to resolve the situation - demonstrating further their belief of being 'above the law', as well as advanced knowledge that their 'brothers' in the court would endorse their position. (Continuing to perceive me as an imbecile, 3 months after filing the Claim, the Met Commissioner tried to catch me out by making me a "Without Prejudice offer": QB # 4(6)4).

ALL of my claims against each of the 3 Defendants were - summarily dismissed (i.e. NOT at trial) - of course, "with costs" - 'by' HM's Master Eyre (my Comments are attached to each of the following 3 Orders). (With every payment of 'costs', I took the opportunity to highlight again to each of the 3 Defendants the LIES and CONNIVING that took place):

As detailed above, under pt # 13, because the evidence does NOT exist to support the accusations, Master Eyre even went as far as attempting to create it.

In the process, he also endorsed the Met Commissioner's absolutely outrageous claim that the police is processing these so-called "crime reports" against me "for the prevention or detection of crime"; "for the apprehension or prosecution of offenders" (police # 3(9)).

More to the point: (typically), the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is another rubber-stamping office for the British State's abuse of power (media articles that support my assessment). Come on! The British State giving 'an effective remedy' to its people against its abuse of power? That would be the day!

In addition to the surrounding events, my absolute determination to clear my name of the highly defamatory, extremely vicious, malicious, perverse accusations against me and opinions of me in the so-called "crime reports" (police: Overview and Outcome) was reinforced further when the police supplied me, on 22.07.11 with a significantly less redacted(and incomplete) version of the 3 "crime reports": 2002, 2003 and 2007 v. the July 09 version: 2002, 2003 and 2007 (discussed under police sections # 1 , # 2 and # 3). Indeed, considering:

(1)the content of the redacted text (2 examples are included above, under pt # 13 (and expanded on under QB # 4(3)): (i) description of multi-criminalAndrew David Ladsky as "A VULNERABLE VICTIM 'I' INTIMIDATE"; (ii) having "NO SUSPICION OF FALSE REPORTING" - in spite of NEVER contacting me at ANY point in time; most of the redacted text is compiled and discussed in my 29.08.11 police Witness Statement);

I then submitted a 17.10.11 Request for Oral Hearing of my Application. Equally predictably, this Request was also refused. This time, by HM's Justice MacKay who, in his 24.10.11 Order, failed to include his reasons (QB # 4(7)3). (My identical comments are attached to each of the 3 MPS Orders). It led me to file, (typically), in vain, a complaint with the Office for Judicial Complaints (QB # 4(7)4).

I had reached 'the end of the line' in the UK courts - as "there is no appeal from the decision of a single judge on an application for permission to appeal”” (CPR Rule 52.16(7)).

to prevent me from getting help with my Claim - e.g. 27 May 11 ; 28 Jul 11 - that also entailed the use of an helicopter, in case I gave the goons the run ; 11 Aug 11 - when I approached a law firm ; 15 Aug 11 - again, entailing the use of an helicopter, because the goons had lost track of me ; on 7 Jul 11, it entailed interfering with a public phone box;

Of note: under the 2012 British Presidency (at the time of my 26.01.12 complaint), the percentage of UK applications "Declared inadmissible or struck out" more than doubled - from 28% in 2011, to 62% in 2012 (ECt # 3).

WARNING: If you are an innocent victim of crime, the English 'justice' system can be extremely dangerous to your health

4 whole years of horrendous torment and trauma at the hands of Her Majesty's courts and tribunal - which, by ignoring persistently the evidence, statutory and other legal requirements, have failed consistently to provide me with an effective remedy - thereby ensuring that the ongoing, horrendous torment continues:

(2)- describing ALL the individuals concerned - who are paid by taxpayers for ensuring the implementation of the rule of law - as acting as though they were / are at the exclusive service of Andrew David Ladsky and his gang of racketeers...

...- there to assist them in their criminal activities, protect them from the legal consequences of their actions / lack of action, as well as inflict 'punishment' for 'my daring' to stand-up to ALL of them?

(NB: For equally obvious reasons (*) - I hold the SAME views about the other part of the double act, the taxpayer-funded police and related - with the joint remit of ensuring the implementation of the rule of law (*) e.g. above: # 13 , # 15 , # 16 , # 17 and # 18.1.

(For snapshots of what they decided to actively assist and protect - see Extortion)

(*) A visitor to my site (Com # 4) wrote: "Once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times and it is enemy action". How do you describe 6 TIMES?

(Like many others), I am providing the 'black-on-white' evidence. WHO, in authority, is going to have the spine to act on it to bring this country back to a time when it could be proud of its institutions?

 Forcing me, as a last resort 'cry for help' (so far, IN VAIN), to set-up this website, and then maintain it - as my only form of 'protection'...

...- a protection the British State tried to remove in early 2014, by hacking into my computer in order to attempt to delete my website. (It had failed to gain the closure of my website in 2007: pt 13, above).

In fact, I view it as conduct that is far worse than that of the 'traditional mafia' as, as I understand it, when you pay it 'for protection' - it does protect you.

(NB: Choice of visual: I am a red belt at kick-boxing)

I WILL NOT "SUFFER IN SILENCE". (Quote from a previous government website, targeted at children, that stated: "Don't suffer in silence. Bullying hurts and you don't have to endure it". At 2012, the replacement website stated: "Bullying can affect you in many ways. You may lose sleep or feel sick... You may even be thinking about suicide").

Spending part of my childhood in an orphanage, etc., has given me an iron will. I made myself what I am through enormous sacrifices and a lot of hard work.

...because: I HAVE, and continue to be made to pay for the public institutions that promised me 'justice, redress and protection'; I will NOT live my retirement in destitution as a direct consequence of their actions that have robbed me, in addition of my life since 2002, of the major part of what I have worked for in my 40+ years in this country, including the nest egg I had accumulated through very hard work and big sacrifices, as well as future potential income.

I am NOT going to let anybody take that away from me simply because 'they decided so'. Further: I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

Heavily bruised and battered as I am, I am a fighter and I will continue to "fight like a demon to the very end. If my flat is going to lead to my drawing the last breath out of my body. So be it. At least it will be a last breath that I will draw feeling extremely proud of myself and with my integrity intact"...

... (as I wrote in my 06.04.05 letter to Michael Howard, then leader of the Conservative Party). (How many of those connected in one way or another with my case will be able to say that when they draw their last breath?)

To quote Che Guevara "I would rather die standing up, than live life on my knees". And I really mean that. I WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

In any case, if, after doing all that I have done, I still do not get justice and redress: I do not want to live in a world like that: dedicated to crime, controlled by crime, for the benefit of crime. I don't fit in in a moral vacuum.

The fury of the corrupt elements in ‘the Brotherhood’ stems from the fact that what I report on this website is THE TRUTH – backed-up by more than 2,000 documents and hundreds of photographs. As I wrote under para.58 of my 17.10.11 Request (QB # 4(7)3): “If my ‘criticisms and accusations’ ...were not justified and true, I would no doubt have had proceedings filed against me a long time ago...."

(I highlight that, in 2013, my reworking the main legal pages in order to add clarity to my case, led to a massive increase in the attacks by British Transport Police helicopters).

...indicate that journalists can also be targeted by the State for exposing 'inconvenient' information.

WHY do they ALL 'very conveniently' overlook the fact that Andrew Ladsky is the ROOT CAUSE for ALL that has happened - including overlook the fact that I have already given in once - in 2003? LADSKY HAS CAUSED their exposure - NOT me. And THEY, in turn, have CAUSED their ongoing exposure as a result of their unbelievable arrogance and stupidity.

(NB: To give them ALL the opportunity to show common sense and intelligence by resolving my situation - leading me to close the website, and leave the country - I purposely did NOT update my website:

For 7 months, from May to Dec 07 (by May, my site had only been online for 4.5 months, hence, relatively few people outside of 'the Brotherhood' had seen it). They did NOT!

I did this again, this time for 8.5 months, from mid July 09 to end Mar 10.

In my 07.11.09 letter to 'my' (then) MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, I wrote: "As my MP, will you be ‘The One’ who – finally - demonstrates intelligence and common sense and say ‘Enough is Enough!’ and help me achieve my objectives – thereby seizing on the opportunity you still have to take the credit for resolving my situation? (Significant correspondence from you, and from me to you et.al. since July, has yet to be placed on my website). (I would like to leave the country permanently – alive and well – having achieved my objectives - by the end of this year)" . The 10.11.09 'reply' : "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th November addressed to Sir Malcolm. Yours sincerely"

(NB: Note that they do NOT have the evidence to support their absolutely outrageous, as well as racist accusation - because it does NOT exist. As explained under pt # 13, above, since 2007, they have attempted desperately to create it, including HM's Master Eyre who, having failed in his ploy, nonetheless endorsed it in 'his' 09.08.11 Order: (QB # 4(6))

...: what does that suggest about this society? Because, based on my value system, this conduct and concurrent conspiracy of silence, and hence, complicity, are TOTALLY, TOTALLY BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION - it leads me to the conclusion that it has become a profoundly sick and very frightening society.

"people follow leaders because they see them as representative of an identity that they share;

they don't inflict harm because they are unaware of doing wrong but because they believe what they are doing is right."

(A cop said to a protester: "People would sell their soul to the devil". Well, I would NOT - for all the riches in the world). (Another saying: 'Once you've sold your soul to the devil, you have to dance to his tune).

In his 10 July 09 article, headed "What kind of country sacks a dinner lady for telling the truth?"the Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn wrote: "This government has a long and ignoble record of persecuting whistleblowers and dissenters who reveal institutional wrongdoing and incompetence". At the time, Labour was in power. Clearly, nothing has changed under its successor.

As the long-standing campaigner, Barry Gardiner, Labour MP, (covered under Prescott # 4.2 & # 4.3) said during the 26 Jun 09 House of Commons debate on leasehold 'reform', in particular, service charge demands:

"To have a right but no means of enforcing that right is to have no right at all"

During the debate, Jacqui Lait, Conservative MP, challenged the minister, Rosie Winterton by stating: "The minister really needs to consider what is happening in the real world, as opposed to what is happening in the legislative world. Many leaseholders experience a total disregard for any of the rights that she is reading out; she must bear in mind that what she is reading out is not what happens to leaseholders." (Add to that the fact that the so-called 'rights' can then be assessed as "NOT freestanding" - added to others, deliberately intended to, likewise, exploit and abuse leaseholders).

The action from the May 2010 Coalition Government? A continuation of previous governments' lack of action. Indeed, its then Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, was quoted as saying:

"With the vast majority of England's three million leaseholders happy with the service they receive, I am satisfied that the current system strikes the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords."

" I'm afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn". "Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work".

Mr Knight also wrote, among other, in relation to his friend's case: "In any other part of daily life, the freeholder and his brother would more than likely be had up for fraud - but not in the arcane world of freeholders, leaseholders, and management companies".

A member wrote to C.A.R.L.:"There is nowhere for leaseholders to turn to! No prosecuting authority = no law enforcement = anarchy"...

...echoing Lord Denning, in his book, "What next in the law?",

“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it the Government, State, employer, trade-union, or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy, otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy”

Add to that the fact that the UK does not have a constitution. With which country/ies do these facts put the UK on a par with?) (However, as demonstrated by my above experience (pts #18(3) to #18(5)) - their being omitted is irrelevant).

NOBODY has the right to tell me that I 'should' continue to accept the ever growing injustice... unless they are prepared to compensate me for ALL that I have lost and suffered. (None have offered).

As a law-abiding, British National, and net contributor to this society, who has paid over £500,000 (US$882,000) in tax since arriving in this country - and has, AS TOLD by the State, DEFERRED to its departments for 'justice, redress and protection': I have THE RIGHT to demand that it fulfils its legal mandate. Ditto about the so-called 'regulators'.
It is their stated remit to protect me from abuses, and to therefore take remedial action.

I do NOT see why I should take on the role of the fugitive i.e. behave as though I am in the wrong, I am 'the criminal'. I also find it absolutely outrageous that, in the 21st century, in a country that calls itself 'civilised', I should justify my not wanting to be robbed of all of my hard-earned life savings, as well as potential income.

I very dearly hope that my exposing chapter and verse of my very shocking case will act as a trigger for change and spare other leaseholders from going through the horrendous suffering I have and continue to endure since 2002. This will be my legacy, for a cause which, thanks to my extremely bad luck in buying a leasehold apartment in a block that ended-up under the control of the Andrew Ladsky gang of racketeers - chose me.

And, while 'the little people' in my borough would most definitely benefit from 'a Ferguson clear-out', especially among the police and judiciary, Rifkind will, for sure, be replaced by another one out of the same mould.

Incensed by the Home Secretary, Theresa May(*) ’s hypocritical and false claims at the Sep 14 Tory conference, in my 25.11.14 letter to her, I contrasted her claims with my experience of her departments: police and related agencies.

I TWICE sent her the letter (2 weeks apart), and did the same thing with the following to whom I copied the letter (i.e. 19 letters x 2) (HO # 3.1(4):

The psychos have gone well beyond their previous record of 30 minutes in one session (on 10 Jul 14 (photos)) by:

On 23 Feb 15, doing it for 1 HOUR and 25 MINUTES whilst I was in the library of my ex. university (video and photos). They circled probably more than 50 times; did a lot of posing – to ensure I could see very clearly the name “police” on either side of the helicopter. (Very considerate!). For good measure, in the afternoon, the psychos added a further 10 minutes.

6 weeks later, on 8 Apr 15, also when I was in the library, in 2 sessions, they added an extra 5 minutes - bringing the total to at least 1 HOUR and 30 MINUTES. (I attribute the duration in part to the EXTREMELY SICK psychos failing to get my attention).

(These and some of the other attacks that have taken place so far in 2015, are a carbon copy of what took place in the same location between e.g. Sep and Dec 13. The longest duration then was 15 minutes, on 14 Sep 13 (photos)).

17 Feb 15 - 45 minutes spread over 4 hours, whilst I was in the library;

24 Mar 15 - 27 minutes in the morning; 10 minutes in the afternoon, also when I was in the library (video and photos);

21 May 15 - 25 minutes, when I was in a store, south of the river, and when I left;

8 Jan 15 – 19 minutes, as I had just walked out of the university (video and photos);

27 Mar 15 - 18 minutes, when I was near Hanover Sq, and then in the square; it entailed a new addition to the 'show': FLYING SIDEWAYS (video and photos);

9 Apr 15 - 15 minutes, also when I was in the library; it had been preceded by the 1 HOUR and 30 MINUTES 'show' (referred to above), 24 hours earlier. This show was itself preceded by an 8-minute 'show', also 24 hours earlier (video and photos).

7 Feb 15 – 13 minutes, when I was at a bus stop, and after tracking me from the uni (video and photos).

Oh! and a little ‘show’ on 6 Jan 15, again when I was in the library (video and photos).

Some developments:

since May 15 the psychos appear to have changed tactic: hovering nearby, mostly out of view and, at times, coming into view only briefly;

(No, so far, there has NOT been any diving straight at me as on e.g. 18 July 14 (photos) and 12 Mar 13 (photos); no doubt, it will come).

So far, for 2015, I calculate the total time taken to dish out the attacks at 13 hours 53 minutes - and bringing the overall total recorded so far, on this website, to 120 ATTACKS.

Given that we are only 5 months into the year, the psychos look set on beating their 2013 record of 45 attacks (recorded on my site; there were more): Graph ; Summary (as discussed below the summary, in 2013, the frequency of the attacks shot up following 'my daring' to add clarity to my case by reworking the main legal pages).

Looking at the manoeuvres, including diving straight at me, flying very low over buildings e.g. 30 Nov 13 (photo) - and the motive behind them - it does not require being a psychiatrist to conclude that the pilots concerned are psychologically unfit to fly fuel-laden helicopters over very densely populated areas - continuing to tempt fate for a major disaster to happen (e.g. the civilian helicopter crash in London, on 16 Jan 13: BBC; Daily Mail).

If you have been doing the same thing, and it came to be known, that - alone - would probably have generated headlines in the British media, describing you as a ruthlesstyrant who commits violations of human rights because you will not tolerate being challenged on your corrupt, criminal activities, and subsequently exposed for what you are).

22 Jan 15 - p.m. - on the underground, a scum I assumed to be from a related police agency and to be tasked with dishing out some retaliation for 'my daring' to challenge the other one in the morning - ensured I was made aware of his interest in me.

I have also noticed on several occasions, as I came out of 'the concentration camp' in the morning, a different man, sitting on the other side of the street, and looking at me.

As the Metropolitan police claimed to have spent £9m between Jun 12 and Oct 14 (i.e. an average of £10,400 per day) policing the Ecuadorian embassy re. Julian Assange, and Lord Carlisle stated on BBC Radio 4, in Aug 14 that "It requires 60 people per year to have somebody followed":

Electricity

Since the 27.01.14 demand that made it the the 7thTOTALLY UNSUPPORTED demand since July 12 - and the 3rd one that continued with the trend of 'MY APPARENTLY USING' AN EVEN GREATER NEGATIVE AMOUNT of "electricity" (!!!) (MG # 18)....

...followed by the mafia deliberately mixing up "the electricity for the block" with that "for [my] flat", in the process, charging me twice (MG # 20)...

...since then, it has NOT sent me another demand. Probably cooking its next "contribution" on this.

Aside from one instance, at the beginning of the year, of an attempt by the 'in-house sentinel' to intimidate and provoke me (they still haven't learnt e.g. 21 Jan 13 ; 25 Jan 13) - NOTHING to report. (On a few occasions, in the evening, he has been standing by the entrance door as I arrive).

1. "that we were not happy that the specifications remain unchanged and the LVT had commented on the same fact, there had been no re -tendering of any sort, the matter had stayed with the same contractor etc etc..."

Following my 05.04.04 complaint against Gallagher to the Bar Council, his reply ((para.58, 09.06.04) was: "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works...there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered"

2. "this payment was in full and final settlement of the current major works."

In reply to my complaint, Gallagher wrote (para.29(7)(ii), 09.06.04) that what had been agreed was "To tweak the offer by stipulating that it was in full and final settlement of NKDR's share of the totality of the costs of the major works"

As can be seen from what he wrote in the 13.11.03 'draft Consent Order': "the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of £6,513.24, inclusive of interest, to be paid in 28 days in full and final settlement of the Defendant=s liabilities under this claim and in respect of the major works at Jefferson House to which this claim relates" - it most definitely did NOT meet what had been agreed.

In fact: (1) accepting to pay interest was an admission that I had owed the sum demanded - which was NOT true (*) ; (2)"under this claim" and "to which this claim relates" - left the door wide open to Ladsky to come back and ask me for more money.

In reply to my complaint, Gallagher (para.52, 09.06.04) and Piper Smith Basham (25.08.04) argued that, "In order to reach a settlement with the claimant it was better to agree to pay the interest. What a mafia! (As I pointed out in my replies, when I took back control of my case (My Diary Dec 03), I refused to pay the interest: my 19.12.03 Notice of Acceptance - and it was not challenged).

Under para.78 of his 09.06.04 reply, Stan Gallagher claimed: "the strategy that I advised on worked: the tweaked offer was accepted". Obviously Ladsky was very keen to have this Consent Order endorsed by the court - as evidenced by Ayesha Salim's 19.11.03 letter to Piper Smith Basham "...endorse the draft Consent Order. We shall then submit it to the Court."

As I wrote under para.52 of my 25.03.05 reply: " There was no 'tweaking' - as he just said 'amen' to everything. Of course his reply was received with open arms"

At the time of the 'offer', I was placed under an unbelievable amount of pressure to go along with what 'my advisers' had decided. (See My Diary from 4 Nov 03 to the end of the year). (It was a continuation of what had been happening during the 28 Oct 03 meeting: PSB # 6.1 , # 7.6 , # 7.7 , # 7.8 , # 7.9 ; Gallagher).

(OF NOTE: from the time I appointed Piper Smith Basham, it had very clearly decided that it would coerce me into 'striking a deal' - see below).

Great emphasis was placed on the threat of "[my] being liable for costs if the matter proceeded to trial".

12.11.03-17h09 e-mail: "I can only repeat my advice and that of Ms McLean that that if this offer is not accepted and the matter proceeds to trial it is virtually certain that the claimant will beat it and Ms Rawé will be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs".

 Para.66 - "it was unrealistic for NKDR to seek an order for costs in her favour: each party paying their own costs (to the date of the offer) was as good an order on costs as NKDR could possibly get"

 Para.67 - "The balance of risks on costs was not finely balanced, it was all against NKDR and my advice reflected that"

 Para.63(1) - "[I] was virtually certain to lose if the claim went to trial and costs would be awarded against her and certainly would not be awarded in her favour"

 Para.49 - "[he] and Ms McLean saw the offer, with its terms that each party pays its own costs as offering something of a life-line that NKDR would be ill advised not to accept"

 Para.49 - "Having reconsidered this conclusion for the purpose of preparing this response, I do not resile from in any way"

Should I stubbornly persist with my position, going against 'my advisors' recommendation, I would be made to repent / learn my lesson:

 Para.66 - "in the likely event that the defence fails, render a final bill for the costs of the litigation and remind the client that the disastrous outcome was in accordance with the original advice given"

Reason? Para.29(5), 09.06.04 - "[Stan Gallagher] did not view that there was a technical defence of merit to the claim" - because:

"[I] had refused opportunities to strike a deal"

 Para.66, 09.06.04 - "consider the fact that NKDR had not accepted previous invitations to attend discussions on settlement in the light of the LVT determination" ; and, para.15 - "[I] expressly rejected CKFT's offers of a round table." (NB: Appropriately described as a salvo of malicious communications)

"[I] had only made a part payment" / "not paid anything"

 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail: "[I] had only paid £2,255 [US$4,000]: "it must be accepted that she is on risk for C's costs at least down to this figure at trial"

 Para.8, 11.10.04: "However, significant service charges remained payable and no payment into court or other offers to settle had been made by Ms Rawé. Hence my analysis that Ms Rawé was vulnerable on costs"

In other words, from the above: Stan Gallagher held against me the fact that:

 I had obeyed - for as long as I could - the instructions given to me by a tribunal to NOT pay - UNTIL it had issued its determination, and it had consequently been implemented i.e. reflected in the demand (# 3 above ; LVT # 1.4 , # 1.5).

"There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant: the nature of the works and their associated costs must be totally clear and transparent - to ALL lessees. In their letter of 24 July 2003, CKFT again offer "a round-table meeting" to resolve matters.

There is nothing to discuss. There are no side deals to be made with the Claimant.

Works that are truly required - and can be charged to the lessees under the terms of the lease must be: totally clear and transparent to all , and the costs equally clear and transparent - also to all .

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT."

Consider as well that under para.23 of his 09.06.04 reply, Stan Gallagher had taken pains to highlight that he was writing a book on litigation in the LVT. In other words, aiming to communicate that he was 'an authority' on this matter. (He was indeed writing a book, ' Leasehold Valuation Tribunals: A Practical Guide' which states that it " Sets out all the powers, responsibilities and jurisdiction of the LVT ". While I have not read it, it suggests that he ought to have known "the jurisdiction of the LVTs" ).

False claim about what my surveyor had said

 In his 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail, Gallagher maintained that my surveyor had "demonstrated" - which, under para.66 of his 09.06.04 reply, he then changed to "had said that the offer could not be bettered". I was able to demonstrate (with evidence in support e.g. paras 50 and 51 of my 05.04.04 complaint) that it was impossible for him to have said this and ended-up contacting my surveyor who concurred with me.

From my challenging his comment, under para.8 of his 11.10.04 reply, he wrote:"I accept that the outcome was a significant reduction in the amount due from the tenants" and, under para.4(1): "At the time I did not consider that the course of the proceedings before the LVT was likely to carry much, if any, weight on the question of costs in the county court proceedings."

"[The landlord] had produced inadequate specifications of the work" - but had 'nonetheless' "substantially complied with the consultation procedure"

 Para.58, 09.06.04 - "[Gallagher's 13.11.03 draft] acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works." (See e.g. Brian Gale # 5 and # 6 for the extent of the "inadequacy')

 Para.3(2), 11.10.04 - "[Having] briefly considered whether there may have been an arguable breach of the statutory consultation procedure for "service chargeable" works under section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985", Gallagher"concluded that the landlord had substantially complied with the statutory consultation procedure"

The above finally led to an admission from Stan Gallagher that I could be not have been made liable for costs - while maintaining that I would not have been able to claim mine back

Para.6, 11.10.04 - "I accept that it is possible that given the level of the sums disallowed by the LVT and the criticisms that could be made about the landlord's conduct, a court may have been persuaded to make no order for costs." [NB: Compare this with his above scare tactics at the time of the reply]

"However, my assessment was that there was no realistic chance that the landlord would be ordered to pay any of Ms Rawé 's costs: particularly as Ms Rawé had rejected the previous offer of a round table discussion". [NB: discussed above]

"In these circumstances I remain of the opinion that the landlord's offer of a compromise on terms that there be no order for costs was a life-line for Ms Rawé" [UNBELIEVABLE!]

Stan Gallagher also endorsed another breach of my rights under my Lease, as well as statute

Gallagher's reply, in his 12.11.03-17h09 e-mail, was: "Similarly, adding conditions for the disclosure of the accounts... can only complicate matters further and jeopardise the prospects of compromising the claim on realistic terms" UNBELIEVABLE!

Under para.136 of my 29.08.04 reply, I asked: "Was Mr Gallagher acting for me or the other side?" to which he, 'of course', took objection: para.9, 11.10.04 "If para 75 of the response implies anything improper on my part, I strongly deny the implication"

(I did NOT pay Stan Gallagher's fees. Having raised this in his initial reply to my complaint, he did not follow it up).

While I had several documents to produce in evidence, least of all the fact that in her 24.11.03 letter Lisa McLean had asked me to confirm that "the consent order may be signed" (My 19 Oct 03 Wit.Stat. # 1), I thought that filing a complaint would be another key element in my line of defence.

In EACH INSTANCE, I ended-up battling with their so-called 'regulator': Law Society or Bar Council, and then with the 'regulator' of the 'regulators': Legal Services Ombudsman ; see e.g. Note 8, below, for my complaints.

FEAR of: losing their home through forfeiture / being unable to sell it ; being liable for large costs ; 'the authorities', including ending-up in court ; affecting their credit rating, their employment prospects ; retaliation, etc.

As detailed above, under the Overview, the ultimate objective of 'striking a deal', starts-off by threatening legal proceedings, followed by the threat of "forfeiture" (# 1), and can also include, for 'good measure', the threat of "bankruptcy" (# 10). Unsurprisingly, faced with these horrendous threats, some leaseholders 'cave in' by that stage e.g. 20.10.02 e-mail from one of my fellow leaseholders to the thenLondon LVT (LVT # 1.4).

If this does not achieve the objective, the pressure is escalated by filing a claim in court - with, generally, no intention of seeing it through (# 3 , # 11) - as the aim is to bully and coerceleaseholders into paying the sum demanded. It works as more leaseholders 'cave in' (# 11). The remaining, more 'stubborn' leaseholders are faced with a succession of hearings (granted with much haste by the courts). Of course, more hearings = more costs = more pressure to cave in and 'strike a deal'.

The 'oddball' like me who is not represented and refuses to strike a deal causes a problem. So, more of the 'artillery' is brought out 'to snare the prey': a salvo of threatening, malicious letters brandishing the favourite weapon, the threat of "costs" is fired in parallel with the court hearings.

The prospects take an unexpected turn for the better when, as in my case, the 'oddball' decides to appoint a solicitor - being forced to do this as a result of being treated, like a piece of dirt, a non-entity by the court (WLCC # 11) = a double act!. As the threatening letters and the 'hearings' (e.g. WLCC # 7 , # 8 , # 9 , # 11) have not so far yielded the desired effect, the push into making 'a deal' is immediately set in motion - as can be seen in the following.

What each lessee is required to pay is clearly defined by means of a fixed percentage (see the attached list of percentage for each of the 35 flats supplied by SSL-MRJ in their 7 August 2002 application to the LVT)."

This would be a very unwise move as it would allow them to get away with the need to redraw the specification, thereby leaving me exposed to further demands at a later stage which, I can guarantee, would be made (letters from MRJ of 26 March 2002 and 15 July 2002 ).

By forcing them to do this, it will put a line under the costs i.e. they will not have any comeback and, if they do come back, I will be in a much better position to challenge them.

Last but not least, I am also hoping that by doing this they will give up on the block as I am taking away their opportunity to illegally charge works to the residents" (NB: How very naïve of me!)

"Incidentally [NB !!!], I took a call from CKFT today and, in view of the costs being incurred by both sides they asked whether we would be amenable to any deals (NB !!!)

I said that I had noted that you had previously refused to deal with them but in the event that they wished to make an offer [NB !!!]I was, as they well know, obliged to put it to you [NB !!!]They intimated that they will make a Part 36 offer (NB !!!)

The relevance of this is that if they make an offer which is rejected and, following trial the judge makes a determination that is no better than the offer that they had made then you will have to pay their costs from the time the part 36 offer had been made up until the trial" (NB: Note the threat)

I replied on 09.12.03: "I maintain what I said: the situation is the result of Steel Services/Mr Ladsky and MRJ's doing - not mine (nor indeed that of the other residents)...my position has remained unchanged: 'No' as this does not achieve my objectives"

If the leaseholder does not yield to the admonition of 'making a commercial decision': "Com'on, look at what you have spent so far. It's nearly as much as they are asking you to pay. Best you settle Dear, make a commercial decision. Pay the landlord. Accept the 'offer'", the leaseholder is blamed for being 'unreasonable' and, by implication, for being 'the cause' of the mounting costs.

Examples (in addition to McLean's comment above): Stan Gallagher (para.5, 11.10.04) "...the costs of the county court proceedings were likely to be out of all proportion with the sum in issue." ; under para.4(8):

"On the landlord's motives in making an offer to settle it may have been that the landlord too recognised that a trial would be disproportionately expensive" (NB: !!!)

My
assessment of the key benefit
to the legal 'advisor' of
implementing this 'standard, off-the-shelf'
approach: no need to spend
time reading, understanding, assessing
and consequently taking into consideration
material evidence (Lease,
report by tribunal,
defence to the claim, exchange
of communication between the parties,
etc.)

The other key 'benefit' is that there is no need to criticise the 'dear' landlord and his aides ('especially of the type I am facing' who, 'of course', 'must not be upset') e.g. Stan Gallagher, para.58, 09 06.04: "The acceptance letter did not include a reference to the inadequate specifications of the major works. there was no need to get into a criticism of the inadequate way in which the works had been specified or tendered ".

(NB: Other reason for the sector's lawyers 'not antagonizing' the 'sacrosanct' landlords: they are their bread and butter (e.g. £400,000 (US$705,000) lawyer fees in one case). And, as evidenced by my experience (Case summary), and that reported by others in media reports, on other websites (below) - in this totally unregulated, bottomless cesspit of interconnecting caves of corruption: there are a LOT of disputes, representing a LOT of money). (I cite the list of cases on the databases of the First-tier and Upper Tribunal, as supporting evidence).

Consequently, no 'embarrassing'
evidence is recorded, leaving
rogue landlord and his equally
rogue aides coming out 'smelling
of roses' (and with
their coffers being substantially
fuller than they should be).

Instead, phone calls are exchanged with the other side and a few letters written to justify the several £000s fees.

It is likely that a very high proportion of these 'scams' (swindles) is resolved by 'striking a deal' in one form or another. I view the Business model used by rogue landlords and their aides as relying very heavily on the fact that, for the majority of people, their home is the sum total of their financial wealth.

Hence,
they prefer giving in and move
on (including spare themselves more rides on the 'merry-go-round') rather than risk being unable
to sell their property.

EVERY SINGLE TIME this
happens,

THE MONSTER GETS BIGGER
AND BIGGER : 'it
worked last time, so, 'of course' it will
work next time!'

More often than not, the 'next time' will be the next unsuspecting leaseholder who purchased the lease on the apartment, as the previous owner paid the unwarranted demand for the sake of escaping with great haste. ('Handing on the baton' as some leaseholders told me 'I should be doing'. Then, I guess that to quash potential feelings of self-loathing, you then take the 'I made the commercial decision pill' so freely handed out by legal 'advisors' to make you feel better).

And the cycle repeats itself, every time yielding very considerable financial gains for all concerned - at the expense of the leaseholder.

Many people had warned me that, complaining against the then MRJ to the RICS, would be a complete waste of time and money. They proved to be right.

To avoid any potential confusion as to what I was referring to, I structured my 02.02.05 summary by referring to sections in the RICS''Service Charge Residential Management Code', and in its 'code of conduct' (I bought at its office) - as it turned out: IN VAIN!

"we are able to investigate allegations of professional misconduct to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the Institution's Rules of conductwhich chartered surveyors are required to follow".

"the appropriate forum" for parts of my complaint were "through civil or criminal proceedings"(*)

claimed to "[have]no power to award any compensation and cannot compel a chartered surveyor to do so or indeed to refund any fees paid" .

(*) It would have amounted to another massive waste of my time and money - see police # 7

In my 05.03.05 reply, I challenged the RICS' response, highlighting the 'Core Values and Principles' comprised in the RICS' 'code of conduct', I considered to have been breached by the then Martin Russell Jones. Hence, to quote the RICS: ". breach of the Institution's Rules of conduct which chartered surveyors are required to follow" .

As more than 3 months had gone by since I filed my complaint, after 2 chaser letters (18.04.05 and 05.05.05), I sent a 17.05.05 letter in which I stated my conclusions that: (1) the RICS evidently approved of the conduct of Joan Hathaway and Barrie Martin; (2) all the other RICS members who had been involved in my case were evidently "all in the wrong".

Determined to have fun with me, in its 13.05.05 letter, the RICS asked me to supply "a summary", to which I replied in my 02.06.05 letter that I had already done this (02.02.05).

In its 10.06.05 reply, the RICSthrew back at me various parts of my complaint, stating, among other:

"the ' Service Charge Residential Management Code' is not mandatory ...is classified as a Guidance Note...an RICS member is not per se in breach of RICS requirements if he does not comply with its recommendations"

"The Management Code was approved by the Secretaries of State. . I believe this could be an explanation as to why the Code does not have the status of being a practice statement as the Secretaries approved it. It is therefore outside the control of the RICS"

Hence, it is called 'a code' - but it is "nota code". For what purpose has it been "approved by the Secretaries of State" ? Decoration of the mantle piece?

Contrast this reply with the above initial reply of 01.03.05: "Members who depart from [the code] should be able to justify their reasons for doing so".

Continuing on its nonsensical journey, the RICS stated: " [the (then)] LVT can take the code into consideration when considering allegations that a member has not followed the recommendations of the code" , and that "the RICS will consider whether such criticism constitutes a breach of RICS regulations"

Hence, while the code is 'apparently' "not mandatory": (1) the LVT can base its determination on it and (2) the RICS will then "consider whether there is a breach ". If the code is "not mandatory", how can there be a breach?

While this reply was a farce, more was yet to come. Indeed, to its 03.08.05 letter, the RICS attached a 27 July 05 reply it had received from the then Martin Russell Jones, following contacting it - and asked me to reply to it - without providing me with a copy of the letter the RICS had sent MRJ.

For a while, I debated whether I should waste, yet more of my time, replying to his 03.08.05 letter. Eventually, I opted to do this on 14.10.05.

"You do not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ. Yet, you expect me to "review the reply...and give [you] [my] comments. In your 1 March 2005 reply you wrote that you "will be approaching the members named for their comments on three specific matters and one general one". What points did you raise that led to the 25 July 2005 reply from MRJ?"

"I am dismayed to learn that it took you ten weeks to inform me that I had not included a copy of the MRJ's reply."

(Note what I wrote: "You did not enclose a copy of your letter to MRJ". That's a typical English 'regulator' tactic: when you are wrong / have not got a leg to stand on: attack to shift the focus away. In addition to blatantly ignoring the content of my letter: the caseworker knew damn well that he had not done it - because done deliberately).

Re. my re-emphasising some of the key points in my complaint (after which I had stated the documentary evidence I had already supplied to the RICS / the reference number in my complaint under which I had provided detail)

"I am quite dismayed by your letter as it appears that you have not taken on board any of the information I clarified to you in my letter of 10 June 2005.

I will not entertain any correspondence that brings new matters into the frame.

I am of the opinion that there is an insufficient weight of evidence to place this matter before an RICS disciplinary committee currently.

Should you be unable to provide corroborative evidence of a breach of the rules, I will have no option other than to close the matter"

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE!

Contrast the RICS' 'reply' to my complaint, with a 17.05.05 disciplinary case, as well as another one featured on the RICS website in 2005, for which, for example, non-provision of an insurance certificate within 6 months of being requested was, 'apparently', on its own, ground for expulsion from the RICS membership. Believe that?

As the then Martin Russell Jones had, very clearly, the full blessings of its trade association, the RICS, to behave as it did, it, of course, continued on its merry way (e.g. # 11, above). Hence, it is also no surprise to see that MRJalso repeated its 'winning formula' in other blocks: RICS # 8.

As to perceptions from within the sector, the MD of a firm of managing agents was reported in the 10 Jun 06 issue of the Estates Gazette (a major publication in the sector) as saying:

"It will take an almighty shake-up to clean up the sector and improve standards"

As the then Martin Russell Jones was also an estate agent (its website (in 2004) stated " Members of. the NAEA (National Association of Estate Agents)" , I also approached the Office of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents by copying it on the complaint I had sent to the RICS.

In its 19.05.05 reply it rejected my complaint because "...according to our records, Martin Russell Jones is not a member and your complaint is, therefore, outside the Ombudsman's terms of reference" = another pointless scheme as those likely to be found at fault are obviously not going to join. As with everything else, you discover it the minute you start 'scratching the surface'.

Pridie Brewster had signed-off the 2002 and 2003 'accounts' for Jefferson House, stating "...the attached schedule of costs, expenses and outgoings is sufficiently supported by receipts and other documents". It was clearly not true - given the London tribunal findings (# 2, above), and the terms of the Lease. (See also my identical Comments attached to the 'accounts' e.g. 2002)

Aiming to help as best as I could, on 17.04.05, I replied to Pridie Brewster, supplying copy of 48 documents (PB # 3). The lack of response led me, after 3 months, to contact the ICAEW on 19.07.05, requesting its assistance. It was the start of - yet again - another battle with an English so-called 'self-regulatory' body - and a carbon copy repeat of my experience with ALL the others: 'fortress ICAEW' immediately embarked on an adversarial tone, ignoring all the evidence I supplied, and threw everything back at me (PB # 4 , # 5).

"... in the event that a Court (or a relevant tribunal) decided that expenditure was not sufficiently supported, and an Institute member firm had reported otherwise, that would give rise to disciplinary considerations"

On the face of it, the reply of 24.05.06 looked 'promising' (PB # 13). However, by then, my comprehensive experience with the 'self-regulatory' bodies, had led me to conclude that should not 'hold my breath' (PB # 15 ). I was right!

I view the concocted 29.08.06 'reply' I received more than 3 months later, as absolutely appalling - as well as insulting to me (and fellow leaseholders) (see PB # 18 ) as it states:

"the LVT stated that tenants could willingly contribute towards the extra costs"

NOTE 7 - Prior to the launch of my website, my above - legitimate - 8 complaints (Notes # 3 , # 5 and # 6), as well as other complaints, had cost me over 1,400 hours of my life i.e. nearly A WHOLE YEAR OF MY LIFE, as well as £00s in costs - ALL DOWN THE DRAIN! Enough was enough. I decided to launch my website.

To my above 8 - legitimate - complaints (Notes # 3 , # 5 and # 6) - that had cost me over 650 hours of my life + several £00s in costs - are to be added the following complaints:

I made the MONUMENTAL MISTAKE of believing what we, 'the little people', are ALL led to believe by the State: that I had rights, I had the right to demand - and that there was a system in place, I was asked to pay for through taxes - there to protect me and help me in time of need.

Initially, it appears to be the case. You are told about this option, and that option, and great emphasis is placed on your statutory rights. You believe it. Of course 'you have rights'. Why should you doubt it? In addition, you have your Lease, a 'binding' contract 'agreed' - in law - between you and the landlord. So, you start going down the avenue in your quest for justice and fair treatment.

What I found out initially reinforced my perception that indeed help was at hand. The "no, but, you need to do 'x' and 'y'" I heard along the way, disheartened me but also induced me to go down further and further in search of justice and protection of my so-called 'rights'. The information I obtained from government departments encouraged me to progress along the route.

At the time, Siobhan McGrath, then President of the thenLVTs, was promoting this claim to the media, at every opportunity e.g. in The Times, 4 Oct 03: "Property - Landlord squabbles resolved", in which she was quoted as saying that LVTs are an "affordable, local solution" for landlords and leaseholders who are in dispute. We aim to provide an accessible and cost-effective forum for resolving residential leasehold problems" ).

(As I discussed in My Diary 2011 - Introduction, I hold the view, based on my first-hand experience, as well as that of other leaseholders (e.g. My Diary 22 Nov 08), that the set-up of these tribunals is intended to bullyleaseholders into submission). (Yes: I am aware that some leaseholders win their case - but at what cost?)

Every time I went to great lengths to explain my case, including providing, often weighty bundles, as proof that I was 'not making it up', and often, more documents in the context of the ensuing drawn-out battles e.g.

Throughout, I have been totally open and honest in communicating my views, especially when the (typical) pushback, misinformation, denials, dismissal, etc. started to kick-in, as I believe in complete transparency and honesty as being the only basis on which to address/remedy a situation.

Many led me into battles spanning many months, even years - resulting in the same outcome from ALL: in effect: 'GET LOST!'. As can be seen from the examples I cite under the various statutes, codes of conduct, and my Lease, as well as under Extortion and Kangaroo court - it does not require being a lawyer or a genius to see that my rights have been repeatedly denied / violated.

Further, no matter how hard I look: I cannot find a note ANYWHERE, on ANY of these Acts - stating that they exclude 'people like me'.

WHY did I persist? Because, based on my value system, naïvely,
I kept hoping that the 'next one'
would help, the 'next one' will
surely see that I am the victim
of a scam / malpractice, the next
one 'will do his / her job'.

Either the door remained shut,
or it was eventually slammed
back in my face. The more I forced
the door to open and to remain
open, the greater the throwback,
pushback, refusal, misinformation
and denial I received.

Initially, I blocked out the contradictory signs because they created cognitive dissonance. I told myself that I was reading too much into things, and dismissed my uneasiness / concerns as nonsense. Then more signs cropped-up, which I also blocked out, because of my perceptual bias that I would get fair and just treatment, that my so-called 'rights' would be protected. I really, truly believed this to be the case. After all, this is what we are ALL led to believe.

Other people who have 'seen the light' agree that for them as well it was a very rude awakening. What you thought was there turned out to be a mirage. There is NOTHING. You are TOTALLY and UTTERLY ALONE.

NOTE 9 - For many years the media, as well as other parties, have consistently
highlighted the feudal nature of
the leasehold system, the appalling
abuses, including daylight robbery,
as well as the terrible misery
it causes to leaseholders; but, successive governments of all colours have refused repeatedly to take action - because under the thumb of the large landowners...

(5) Protection from Eviction Act 1977 - s.11 - Application to Isles of Scilly: Ditto + "(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment, in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (3) An order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order."

"There are 3 million leaseholds in Britain... they might find themselves in the hand of a modern-day 'Rachman landlord who uses the lease to extract money... threatening tenants with repossession if they fail to pay... presenting them with absurd service and maintenance bills. They make leaseholders' lives a misery."

"Thousands of leaseholders are currently embroiled in legal action with their landlords over exorbitant charges for services and unnecessary maintenance work. While the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill should help prevent this problem arising it won't eradicate it, as it contains no proposals to abolish the antiquated and much-derided leasehold system"

"Landlords' £1bn insurance sting" . "The swindle is a result of managing agents and landlords secretly adding inflated 'administration' fees to premiums and then passing the combined bill to leaseholders under the guise of an insurance charge"

To this the Independent on Sunday's journalist replied "I am afraid, Mr Shapps, you are either deluded or simply don't give a damn". "Here at the Independent on Sunday we are getting complaints from across the country about management companies, their disproportionate service charges and overcharging for maintenance work". (NB: More detail, above, in the Overview).

"Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees". "A million homeowners in flats and retirement homes are being left at the mercy of managing agents who charge exorbitant service fees while providing poor maintenance. These property owners are being exposed to a multi-million-pound rip-off by an unregulated industry"

The Daily Mail, 27 Jan 11

"Homeowners concerned by managing agents charging sky-high fees" "Some of the worst examples are seen in sheltered accommodation, where vulnerable older people can pay huge charges for wardens and alarm systems... The biggest player... Peverel Group Ltd (*) ... manage[s] 200,000 leasehold properties across the country... Charities such as Age UK have lobbied the Government for years to enforce regulation of managing agents and are confounded by the lack of protection for residents in leasehold properties"

"Big society? Big rip-off""...about 1.6 million households in this country and counting - [are] being exploited by unscrupulous management companies. The legislation - before it was killed off by Mr Shapps - would have finally brought transparency to the whole managing agent industry...building insurance... This is a racket worth millions... Mr Big society Mr Shapps? Big rip-off more like"

Grant Shapps' response was: "I am watching it carefully" (!!!) (NB: In the game of musical chairs, the following month, Shapps was replaced by Mark Prisk e.g. The Guardian article of 5 Sep 12. Maybe Shapps had 'strained his eyes' from "watching it carefully"). A few months later, Prisk was also replaced - by Kris Hopkins.

As detailed in C.A.R.L.'s Leaseholder Autumn 2012 Issue 36, the programme also reported that a large number of local authorities have struck "sweetheart deals" with contractors, allowing them to share in the profits from building works paid for by leaseholders. (See also Comment # 31 for somebody's experience with a council).

"Freeholds are sometimes worth much less than the value of individual flats, with the result they can end up in the hands of small-time property barons with devious ways of squeezing money from their tenants."

OUTCOME: freeholder gets back the property - at a discount - and puts it back on the market... to catch his next victim. In other words: putting the 'troublesome' leaseholder 'out of action' through death, or 'the Court of Protection', is KEY to increasing the all important 'churn out rate' - that keeps the money flowing in the coffers of the landlords and of their accomplices).

(See My Diary 1 Nov 03, for land ownership in the UK, and the massive public subsidies paid to the richest landowners in the country).

As pointed out by Barry Gardiner, MP, during his 8 Jan 02 speech to the House of Commons (my emphasis in the text):

"Since 1884[NB:!!!], when the first Leaseholders Bill was introduced and defeated...In the 118 years that have elapsed since then, they have introduced 31 different Bills dealing with leasehold reform.All but two of those 31 Bills have been defeated.

...Such has been the power of property and the landed classes in this country, and such is the injustice that so many people outside Parliament have hoped for years that a Bill might overcome"

Pre the 1997 "election", the Labour Party published a policy document entitled 'An End to Feudalism'

"Leasehold as a form of residential tenure is a throwback to feudalism. It gives exceptional privileges and powers to landowners..."

Over recent decades [NB:!!!]the weaknesses and injustices inherent in the British leasehold system have been increasingly highlighted, but reform has been a long time coming. To replace the archaic and discredited leasehold framework.."

"The Government considers that leasehold is a fundamentally unsatisfactory tenure...since the leases for flats tend to provide greater scope for abuse by the landlord...throughout the life of the lease, the landlord has far more power than the leaseholders.

It then discusses 'so called' measures and 'rights' "put in place" for leaseholders, after which it admits:

"despite all the safeguards, bad landlords have found ways to continue with their old abuses, and have invented some new ones. Leaseholders have found the remedies cumbersome, difficult and expensive to use." (NB: Done DELIBERATELY by the State)

One year later, in 2003, KEITH HILL, then Housing Minister, stated, on a BBC Radio 4 programme, that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act does not adequately address the serious problems posed to leaseholders by the continued presence of forfeiture on the statute books: "We didn't probably appreciate quite how significant this was for some of our citizens."

...- because (as evidenced by e.g. my experience) it is an extremely useful FRAUD TOOL his et.al.'s landlord friends and their aides were very keen to have. (See John Prescott for further detail)

In Nov 05, when the same Labour government was challenged in the House of Lords on the fact that, after more than one year, there were only 6 commonhold registered on the Land Registry, it replied that it would "hold a formal review" . (NB: A typical government-delaying tactic). It was pointed out that it had ignored the feedback from the House of Lords and the House of Commons during the consultation stage. (See John Prescott # 4.2 for further detail)

As Nigel Wilkins, Chair of C.A.R.L. remarked in 2005 "It is now just over ten years since the Labour Party published "An End to Feudalism", which proposed "to replace the archaic and discredited leasehold framework" with a new form of tenure called "commonhold".

Since then, with 40 per cent of new developments consisting of leasehold flats, the leasehold system has grown more rapidly than at any time since the Doomsday Book. Why does the government wish to continue promoting an eleventh century system of home tenure, now a millennium out-of-date?"

Of course, it ensured the continuation of its retention, that included, in Mar 08, the then PM, Gordon Brown, turning down a petition for the demise of the system. Hence, the above promises were (typically) LIES.

 The Offices of the Citizens Advice Bureau who, in spite of being generally ill-equipped to advise on leasehold matters (in my opinion, this is a deliberate policy) generally aim to do their best to assist.

NOTE 11 - At the very least...

There is an estimated 3-5 million leaseholders in the United Kingdom. From regular contact with many other leaseholders since 2002, I have come to realise that, while my story is unique in its details, it is far from being untypical (e.g. media reports). If I cannot get assistance in achieving my objectives, then...

...I
most fervently hope that, at
the very least, this site will
be a trigger for change, a wake-up
call.

Not in the 21st century,
and NOT in a country that considers
itself 'civilised' and has
signed-up to the European Convention
on Human Rights.

In the meantime, I hope that this site will be of some help to those who, like me, are victims of abusive, rogue landlords and their equally abusive and unscrupulous aides: managing agents, solicitors, etc. - as well as to the very courageous leaseholders who have so readily been blamed by their fellow leaseholders for failing to achieve a just and fair outcome. To them I say: get your fellow leaseholders to look at my site - and demand an apology from them.

By 'help' I mean awareness of what can happen, as this site is only intended to be descriptive - not prescriptive - and relates exclusively to my case. (I am NOT a lawyer, just an 'ordinary' leaseholder and consumer - with a very strong aversion to injustice - and to being pushed around). Although in many parts of the site I have included interpretations / implications from my very extensive desk research, insights and conclusions, clearly, they stem from a focus on my case. In parts, they are reinforced by the experience of numerous other leaseholders I am in contact with.

While your experience may be similar to mine on a number of aspects, it will be unique in the details - leading you to draw other insights and conclusions - and, consequently, course of action.

I hope that, at a minimum, the site will convey to you that you are not alone in your fight (and there are many others besides me ;-) ). The greater the number of leaseholders/ lessees who fight back, refusing to be bullied by the terrorist-like tactics of abusive landlords and their equally abusive aides, the greater the pressure to put an end to this archaic, barbaric, feudal system that benefits the pockets of a minority at the expense of the majority.

Until this happens, my main message to you - and only recommendation in this entire site - is:

Unite
with your fellow lessees...

...and really pull
your weight. Don't let just a
few individuals shoulder the
responsibility. As a united,
active group, you have some power,
as it makes it more difficult
for the 'landlord-friendly' government
departments and individuals in
the professions to take advantage
of you - unlike me who has been
fighting this on my own. Take heart from the example of the 78 pensioners.

Pick-up
your starfish today

What do starfish have to do
with this? It is a short story
(1):

A storm resulted in hundreds
of starfish being washed-up on
a beach. A woman is walking along
picking-up the starfish one by
one and throwing them back to
the sea.

A man, standing away, is observing
her. After a while, he comes
up to her, and says: "what
are you doing? " "I
am throwing them back to the
sea otherwise they will die ".

"But there are hundreds
of them on the beach! " "Yes " says
the woman, and, as she picks-up
another starfish and throws
it to the sea, says "and
I have made a difference to
that one! "

As she picks up another starfish
and throws it to the sea, she
says "and to that one as
well! "

Imagine hundreds of people on
the beach, each picking-up one
starfish...

(1) Author unknown

As somebody once said, "the forces
of evil won because the good people did
not do anything"

To all of you currently fighting unfair
treatment from abusive landlords / their
aides: